At the end of the day, we've got 3 choices--band aid for gays, make civil unions/marriage encompassing of any desired relationship, or simply keep the traditional man-woman marriage as is. Personally, I don't have a problem with the last option.

you missed the fourth option that I am pushing for: no civil or legal unions... if you want to call yourself married, go right ahead but it means nothing from a legal standpoint... everyone is treated the same. The problem with that for the animal-human marriages is that animals lack most of the rights attributed to humans... but you can still be free to say you are married to an animal if you want. I will throw another twist in this argument... many nuns say they are married to Christ. Corporations are considered like a human by the law and the Bible uses the concept of marriage as a metaphor of the bond between the church and Christ. It should be possible then for a church organization to marry it's self to Christ... or nuns doing the same. The only problem is Christ is physically dead (or is he?) but the state of being married to someone extends beyond the death of one of the spouses so I don't see why one of the spouses could not be dead in the first place. (wait for it... I am almost to my point) Some religions recognize reincarnated beings (such as the Dalai Lama). Could you then marry an animal and claim they used to be a human and have the marriage recognized in all our current laws but with the one spouse deceased? I think that might work.

Do you think that's just absurd or should we all, one day, get the chance to marry our pets? Why? / Why not?

Rainbow Warrior wrote:

I really appreciate your discussion and the fact you're not having an arguments or anything, but can I get some more answers to my question?

I take the word "absurd" to mean "beyond possibility" so the question really becomes "do you think there is a way that eventually we will have a chance to marry our pets?..." which is really a discussion of HOW we might eventually be able to marry any sort of human we want and later how that would apply to a non-human. With that in mind, I see all this thread to be rather spot on target to answer the question of pet marriage. I see animals as being humans trapped in a non-human body and brain so for me, marrying my pets would be totally normal... in fact that is how I consider pet husbandry which sure sounds like marriage with the term "husbandry" being so close to "husband"! The only question for me is how that might happen from a legal standpoint.

you missed the fourth option that I am pushing for: no civil or legal unions... if you want to call yourself married, go right ahead but it means nothing from a legal standpoint...

Yes, I believe I've touched on that but failed to include it as an option. I'm of the opinion that, if we're going to have any sort of union, then the union can be anything those being united want it to be. Outside of that I'm with you--call it what you will, no legal recognition.

None of that, however, interests me as much as relations between humans and technology itself, be it lifelike cyborgs or some form of interactive and tactile virtual reality.

You may have figured out by now that I am one of those "furry" people who love to dress up as animals or use an animal identity (voles are mouse to gerbil sized rodents with a short tail as a general rule). My "fursona" specifically is to be an artificial intelligence program living on the internet and paying her way to have server space and processor access by doing internet research for humans. She will interact with humans using an animated vole image that operates as an attachment program for your browser allowing the image to interact with the browser buttons and the internet page links as she shows the human different things she has found. So, if we have intelligent computer programs that obtain a self will and a desire to continue to exist and have access to the food and oxygen of such a creature (CPU access, internet access, information and programming to incorporate in it's programming), should such a program be afforded rights of an animal (not suffer mostly but a chance to continue live if possible), or even a human (including the right to marry a human)? I wrote a back-story for a story of technologically advanced animals living in space and fighting for their freedom from pirates, slave traders, and predators/farmers of their various species (the evil ones of course being creatures from other planets as the earth species figured out how to get along before advancing to space travel). This back-story went as follows:

some animals figured out how to use the internet. Some further figured out how to get themselves on the human voter lists in some countries. Before non-politicians managed to stop this, politicians saw animals as easy voters to please. Changed laws gave some technological savvy species a higher level of rights. Bio-tech companies were all too happy to provide genetic alterations to babies to give them a body better suited to use human technology (including vocal language with mouth and brain genetic changes). Of course animals would have far more reason to head into space to find their own planets to terraform and call their own. Animals with hooves and other strong impediments to gaining internet access would be farmed by carnivore animals like wolves with an understanding not to kill species that had obtained voter right status.

Now you've gone and distracted me. I have to watch the original Tron tonight and follow it with The Lawnmower Man before responding further.

thanks for that! I was not aware of "The Lawnmower Man" movie and the trailer looks great. Another topical movie might include "Bicentennial Man" (1999) (robot with emotions that lives 200 years and develops a family relationship with humans... who all grow old and die. Along the way he learns what it is to be human and also has to struggle to obtain and retain rights - specifically the right to continue to live after his owner(s) dies/corporation dissolved). On the opposite end of the spectrum are two puppets-with-humans short-lived TV shows aimed at adults. "Greg the Bunny" is about puppets who star in a kids show and their lives off-set and their interactions with the human producers/directors/co-stars. They prefer to be called "fabricated Americans" rather then puppets. "Mongrels" is a BBC3 (British) show staring an suburbanite yuppy fox and various other pet and urban wildlife animals (and the humans in their lives). The main character is a virgin at first until he has sex with a pigeon... then he marries his sister "Dad, can I have your daughter's hand in marriage?" The Everyone loves a lesbian episode touched on lots of marriage issues.

Yes, but the fact your marriage was not recognized in some states created a larger issue than whether you had to eat at a different counter or drink from a different fountain.

Please. We're talking folks who thought others were sub-human animals, and you're telling me that the marriage part of it was bigger than that? Here and now, it boils down to marriage and not much more.

Quote:

The marriage was a criminal act in some states, many of which would take the same approach with homosexuals if allowed.

You'll have places where it is recognized and where it isn't. It wouldn't be a criminal offense. Ideally it won't be recognized anywhere simply due to the fact that it makes as much sense as someone "marrying" a broomstick.

Quote:

The fact certain citizens are being discriminated against shouold be more of a problem than it is, which scares me a little in thinking how easy it would be to start loosing freedoms to the new theocracy being created.

Are you serious? You know we became the most powerful nation on the face of the planet, all the while discriminating against blacks and not giving a rats ass one way or another about gays. Theocracy indeed. It's more like sudden widespread cases of theophobia.

Yes, but the fact your marriage was not recognized in some states created a larger issue than whether you had to eat at a different counter or drink from a different fountain.

Please. We're talking folks who thought others were sub-human animals, and you're telling me that the marriage part of it was bigger than that?

One cannot change the beliefs of others, so the point is what changes we need to impliment in the law. there are still those who view other races as less than human and those who view homosexuals in a similar light.

Quote:

Here and now, it boils down to marriage and not much more.

Other than being abused, beaten, killed, and it being suggested there need to be large concentration camps to allow the homosexuals to die off? Marriage is where the rights are being clearly abused by the government, yes.

Quote:

The marriage was a criminal act in some states, many of which would take the same approach with homosexuals if allowed.

Quote:

You'll have places where it is recognized and where it isn't. It wouldn't be a criminal offense. Ideally it won't be recognized anywhere simply due to the fact that it makes as much sense as someone "marrying" a broomstick.

Only for those ignorant in the rights granted under the Constitution. In the case of the broomstick, only the rights of a single person could possibly be impacted and in a limited way. In the case of two people the rights of both are being limited and in some significant ways.

Quote:

Quote:

The fact certain citizens are being discriminated against shouold be more of a problem than it is, which scares me a little in thinking how easy it would be to start loosing freedoms to the new theocracy being created.

Are you serious? You know we became the most powerful nation on the face of the planet, all the while discriminating against blacks and not giving a rats ass one way or another about gays.

You forgot to include women since they were and still are discriminated against as well. That make the case for there being no real logic to this position.

Quote:

Theocracy indeed. It's more like sudden widespread cases of theophobia.

That explains the ads by the churches and religious leaders to uphold the "Christian definition" of marriage and to do away with the abomination that is homosexuality. Not to mention the "Christian values" the US government is supposed to uphold according to their position.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

It is in this spirit that we have created this site. It is to serve as a resource and reference for church leaders and laypeople alike. It is to be a portal for Christians to communicate and network in order to restore the body of Christ to its rightful position of tolerant leadership in all aspects of our government.

Not to forget the "faith based iniatives" of the GOP under President George W. Bush.

One cannot change the beliefs of others, so the point is what changes we need to impliment in the law. there are still those who view other races as less than human and those who view homosexuals in a similar light.

As there will be until the end of time with regard to any particular race, creed, religion, etc. I agree the point is changes in the law, if any at all.

Quote:

Other than being abused, beaten, killed, and it being suggested there need to be large concentration camps to allow the homosexuals to die off?

So what? Homosexuals hardly have a monopoly on poor treatment.

Quote:

Marriage is where the rights are being clearly abused by the government, yes.

Homosexuals DO have the right to marry. Understanding what that means apparently escapes a number of people. This isn’t abuse or discrimination. The rights are simply not applicable.

Quote:

Only for those ignorant in the rights granted under the Constitution.

As opposed to those ignorant over what things are and are not? Get enough folks on the same page and you can legally define that a tricycle is a motor vehicle.

Quote:

In the case of the broomstick, only the rights of a single person could possibly be impacted and in a limited way. In the case of two people the rights of both are being limited and in some significant ways.

No they’re not. Again, the two people’s circumstances are such that the rights do not apply.

Quote:

You forgot to include women since they were and still are discriminated against as well. That make the case for there being no real logic to this position.

Point being, there are bigger fish to fry. We were then and are moreso now the most liberal country in the world with regard to human rights. We’re not only at the point where folks are starting to want preferential treatment, but there are also a sufficient number of folks ignorant enough to buy into it.

Quote:

That explains the ads by the churches and religious leaders to uphold the "Christian definition" of marriage and to do away with the abomination that is homosexuality. Not to mention the "Christian values" the US government is supposed to uphold according to their position.

Well, I’m not a holy roly, it doesn’t scare me, and I don’t think homosexuality is an abomination. I don’t agree with all Christian values but I do with the bulk of them. I don’t have a problem with extra-marital sex or prostitution. Marriage just happens to be one with which I do agree. Call me a bigot if you want. I simply say the right applies given the correct set of circumstances.

One cannot change the beliefs of others, so the point is what changes we need to impliment in the law. there are still those who view other races as less than human and those who view homosexuals in a similar light.

As there will be until the end of time with regard to any particular race, creed, religion, etc. I agree the point is changes in the law, if any at all.

OK.

Quote:

Quote:

Other than being abused, beaten, killed, and it being suggested there need to be large concentration camps to allow the homosexuals to die off?

So what? Homosexuals hardly have a monopoly on poor treatment.

No, but the problems are not just marriage as was indicated.

Quote:

Quote:

Marriage is where the rights are being clearly abused by the government, yes.

Homosexuals DO have the right to marry. Understanding what that means apparently escapes a number of people. This isn’t abuse or discrimination. The rights are simply not applicable.

They cannot marry whom they wish in many states. That is a right which is being violated by the government.

Quote:

Quote:

Only for those ignorant in the rights granted under the Constitution.

As opposed to those ignorant over what things are and are not? Get enough folks on the same page and you can legally define that a tricycle is a motor vehicle.

You can do that, but currently there is no such redfinition being undertaken.

Quote:

Quote:

In the case of the broomstick, only the rights of a single person could possibly be impacted and in a limited way. In the case of two people the rights of both are being limited and in some significant ways.

No they’re not. Again, the two people’s circumstances are such that the rights do not apply.

How can that be the case? They are citizens of the US are they not? They are over the age of majority, are they not? They are seeking the legal protections provided to a citizen over the age of majority who wishes to include another person over the age of majority in their legal life.

Quote:

Quote:

You forgot to include women since they were and still are discriminated against as well. That make the case for there being no real logic to this position.

Point being, there are bigger fish to fry.

What "bigger fish" preclude the prevention of violations of individual's rights?

Quote:

We were then and are moreso now the most liberal country in the world with regard to human rights. We’re not only at the point where folks are starting to want preferential treatment, but there are also a sufficient number of folks ignorant enough to buy into it.

What preferential treatment? The issue is getting EQUAL treatment.

Quote:

Quote:

That explains the ads by the churches and religious leaders to uphold the "Christian definition" of marriage and to do away with the abomination that is homosexuality. Not to mention the "Christian values" the US government is supposed to uphold according to their position.

Well, I’m not a holy roly, it doesn’t scare me, and I don’t think homosexuality is an abomination. I don’t agree with all Christian values but I do with the bulk of them. I don’t have a problem with extra-marital sex or prostitution. Marriage just happens to be one with which I do agree. Call me a bigot if you want. I simply say the right applies given the correct set of circumstances.

Are you trying to say the right does not apply because you do not agree with it being applied to those you do not think should be married?

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Are you trying to say the right does not apply because you do not agree with it being applied to those you do not think should be married?

I'm saying that no one has a right to something that doesn't exist. I'm saying that sex matters in certain cases, and that this happens to be one of them. It's nothing personal. It's not a matter of rights unless one puts themselves in a position where they apply.

Are you trying to say the right does not apply because you do not agree with it being applied to those you do not think should be married?

I'm saying that no one has a right to something that doesn't exist. I'm saying that sex matters in certain cases, and that this happens to be one of them. It's nothing personal. It's not a matter of rights unless one puts themselves in a position where they apply.

So the right does not exist because you believe there should be a definition that precludes that in a certain religious interpretation? Just as women did not have the rights due to their being the wrong sex and African Americans not having rights due to their being the wrong race? All they needed to do was become the correct race or sex, so it was their fault for not having rights. Make perfect sense if you close both eyes, tilt your head back, and slam it into the wall in front of you with as much force as you can muster.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein